The Victory of Turbo-Capitalism in the Universe?
Phil Fraering
>Is it my imagination or does feudalist get all of his ideas on
>capitalism from paranoid leftists --- except he thinks their
>pessimistic scenarios are a utopia?
DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!
--
Phil Fraering Now I lay me down to sleep
p...@globalreach.net Try to count electric sheep
/Will work for tape/ Sweet dream wishes you can keep
How I hate the night. - Marvin, the Paranoid Android.
Phil Fraering
>Do you mean "owned" or "controlled?" The very wealthy control a lot more
>wealth than they own. (You "control" anything you own 51% of, and with
>multi-level directorates it is possible to "control" a considerable
>mulitiple of what you "own").
Can you explain this part to me again? I'm having problems visualizing
it.
BackTo1913
Has any SF authors imagined this scenario before?
Everybody in the world is chasing for money, and winners and losers are
being rapidly determined. The winners are Rentiers, those who had
properties to begin with and those who had the savvy to invest on
growth stocks.
The losers are middle class and lower classes. Few people now call
household with an annual income of $100,000 middle class. Even folks
who gets $80,000/year income are one or two paychecks away from the
streets.
Within thirty years, feudalism is going to be reborn. The Rentiers (or
the Sovran Individuals, borrowing Sprague de Camp's spelling --- for
some reason he always spelled the word "sovran") would own practically
everything, and all others work at their peonage. That is a factor of
life, and it was true for the last 88 centuries, except the last two.
Love, Emotion, Sympathy, Affection, Compassion, etc, etc would
disappear altogether, and only things that can be measured
qualitatively, like Gross Profit, Bottom Line, P/E ratio, Interest
Rate, etc, etc would survive.
M/A industry is the biggest in the world, with more than a trillion
dollars. The entire IT industry, combined, is less than half a
trillion. Who benefits from M/As? The stockholders, the attorneys, and
the anaylists. Who loses from it? the rank-and-file.
The future would be very hard for the rank and file, just like the last
88 centuries. The world is returning to its proper place, back to 1913.
In 1913, about 5% of British population had 90% of all annual income.
(Up from 4% in 1900, an increase of 25%.) Things were not much better
in the rest of the earth. It will be once again the case in 2013.
One or several mega-corporations would divide up the world and rule it,
and all small businesses would have collapsed. In 1913, the entire
globe had fallen into Caucasian domination; in the world, the two
independent non-white nations were Japan and Ethiopia. (Liberia was a
de facto protectorate of the US; the other smaller nations were under
varying degrees of Western domination.)
One Major country (Britain), three major countries (Imperial Germany,
France, the US), and a few mini-major countries (Russia, Italy,
Austria) controlled everything, except for several European polities
allowed to survive as buffer zones.
They controlled the entire 1.6 billion people on the world, and
everything was peaceful and stable. Stability and prosperity had
conquered the world. I have already told you what an Italian peddler's
son did to destroy it.
(If someone from a lower class enters the Establishment, it really
shows. That's why France now has ENA, an institution open only to the
most intelligent people in that nation with preferably good pedigree,
and which produces practically all officials in the ministries.
The INSEAD in Switzerland are doing the same thing for Europe's
business leaders; unlike Wharton Biz Schools, INSEAD has no
scholarships, only sponserships. INSEAD's curriculum is very intensive;
its graduates have to finish everything the US biz school students do
within eleven months, and they have to learn a foreign language alien
to their own backgrounds (ie; Italians are not allowed to study
Spanish) within the same time period.
US posh universities are less elitist than Europe's, thanks to
political correctness. However, they would turn like that within 30
years, closing the last door of opportunity for the lowborn.)
I am sure no SF writers have ever thought about this possibility; if
someone have thought it out earlier, I greatly respect him.
Is it good or bad? Good for less than 1% of world population, bad for
the rest of them. Still, it is the trend, and wise men prepare for that
by doing what's profitable for them.
WI there are no more growth possible? then, the earthlings probably
would burst out to space, to conquer new market. Although how many
Alpha Centaurians would be inclined to buy earthling goods are not yet
calculated.
Thinks would ge very interesting within a few years, with the
Constitution shedding all of its amendment and returning to the
original intent of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.
--
Three Principles of Life:
Don't fight a battle you will lose.
Do whatever that is most beneficial to you.
A loaf of bread is more valuable than freedom.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jordan S. Bassior
> Turbo-Capitalism (named by Edward Luttwak) has triumphed in earth.
>Has any SF authors imagined this scenario before?
Ad nauseum. Usually by SF writers who don't understand economics very well.
>Everybody in the world is chasing for money, and winners and losers are
>being rapidly determined.
Economics is a positive-sum game. While there usually are some "losers", a
likelier outcome is for most people to "win" , or at least do well enough to
stay in the game.
>The winners are Rentiers, those who had
>properties to begin with and those who had the savvy to invest on
>growth stocks.
>
>The losers are middle class and lower classes.
Why didn't the middle classses invest in "growth stocks"? As a matter of fact,
over time MOST stocks grow, and faster than any other investments with
equivalent levels of risk.
>Few people now call
>household with an annual income of $100,000 middle class. Even folks
>who gets $80,000/year income are one or two paychecks away from the
>streets.
Why did the cost of living go up so dramatically in your scenario?
>Within thirty years, feudalism is going to be reborn. The Rentiers (or
>the Sovran Individuals, borrowing Sprague de Camp's spelling --- for
>some reason he always spelled the word "sovran") would own practically
>everything, and all others work at their peonage.
Why can't the "others" save their money and invest in the corporations,
becoming "rentiers"?
>Love, Emotion, Sympathy, Affection, Compassion, etc, etc would
>disappear altogether, and only things that can be measured
>qualitatively, like Gross Profit, Bottom Line, P/E ratio, Interest
>Rate, etc, etc would survive.
???!!! So, um, society becomes more stratified and this somehow turns us into
bad sf robot monsters?
>M/A industry is the biggest in the world, with more than a trillion
>dollars. The entire IT industry, combined, is less than half a
>trillion. Who benefits from M/As? The stockholders, the attorneys, and
>the analyists. Who loses from it? the rank-and-file.
Calling "mergers and acquisitions" an "industry" is misleading. Ownership is
being transferred, but the "product" is nothing more than more efficient
allocation of investment resources.
One group of "rank-and-file" (downsized employees) lose from it. Another group
of "rank-and-file" (consumers and small stockholders) gain from it. The gain is
greater than the loss. Positive-sum.
>One or several mega-corporations would divide up the world and rule it,
>and all small businesses would have collapsed.
Why? If the cost of living has gone up, why can't small contractors make money
by providing cheaper goods and services?
>They controlled the entire 1.6 billion people on the world, and
>everything was peaceful and stable.
Until 1914, that is.
>I have already told you what an Italian peddler's
>son did to destroy it.
Gallieni didn't start World War One.
>US posh universities are less elitist than Europe's, thanks to
>political correctness. However, they would turn like that within 30
>years
Why?
>I am sure no SF writers have ever thought about this possibility; if
>someone have thought it out earlier, I greatly respect him.
H. G. Wells thought of it, around 1900, in _The Sleeper Wakes_. And it's been
recycled ever since ... "cyberpunk" being only one of the more recent
incarnations.
>Is it good or bad? Good for less than 1% of world population, bad for
>the rest of them.
Not so good for that 1% either, since the price of this stability is a much
lower economic growth rate, which means that in absolute terms even the top 1%
is less wealthy than in a more open and capitalist economy. It's "good" only
for the subclass of that elite suffering from the need to dominate others.
>WI there are no more growth possible? then, the earthlings probably
>would burst out to space, to conquer new market. Although how many
>Alpha Centaurians would be inclined to buy earthling goods are not yet
>calculated.
ROFL!!! ... I think it's more likely that we would secure RESOURCES from space,
and in the process colonize it.
>Thinks would ge very interesting within a few years, with the
>Constitution shedding all of its amendment and returning to the
>original intent of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.
And that intent was ...? No, I'll guess ... "feudalist?"
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and
a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Matthew Blackwell
BackTo1913 <feud...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7t0155$6ec$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Turbo-Capitalism (named by Edward Luttwak) has triumphed in
earth.
> Has any SF authors imagined this scenario before?
>
losers are
had
> properties to begin with and those who had the savvy to invest
on
> growth stocks.
>
call
> household with an annual income of $100,000 middle class.
For once, you're absolutely correct. Few people would call a
household
with that income as being middle class. After all, the real
median income in
1997 for a US household was $38,885. That would make the
households at
$100,000 annual income *upper* class. (Or at least upper middle
class.)
Joseph Hertzlinger
Jordan S. Bassior
Seems like it to me. His "feudalist" future is a variant on Marx's "ultimate
crisis of capitalism".
J Greely
>Few people now call household with an annual income of $100,000
>paychecks away from the streets.
Well, let's see: I make between $80,000 and $100,000 a year (base
salary), I live in an area with a cost of living much higher than
average (Silicon Valley), I have zero debt, and I've got so much
disposable income that I'm running out of high-tech toys to buy
(suggestions, anyone?). Score that one for Reality, zero for
Feudalist.
>Love, Emotion, Sympathy, Affection, Compassion, etc, etc would
>disappear altogether,
Nah, you can rent those anywhere.
>The world is returning to its proper place, back to 1913.
Oh, goody! That means John M. Browning is still alive and designing
new toys for me to buy!
>One or several mega-corporations would divide up the world and rule it,
>and all small businesses would have collapsed.
Wasn't Stallone in that movie?
-j
Louann Miller
wrote:
>BackTo1913 <feud...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>Few people now call household with an annual income of $100,000
>>middle class. Even folks who gets $80,000/year income are one or two
>>paychecks away from the streets.
>
>Well, let's see: I make between $80,000 and $100,000 a year (base
>salary), I live in an area with a cost of living much higher than
>average (Silicon Valley), I have zero debt, and I've got so much
>disposable income that I'm running out of high-tech toys to buy
>(suggestions, anyone?).
Home theaters seem to have an infinite capacity for sucking up spare
money (said the wife of the man who owns one). IMHO, the smart way to
do this is to get a moderately good system and then build your laser
disc/DVD library.
He gets to play with five or six remote controls. I get to indulge my
taste for collecting swordfighting movies.
BackTo1913
"Matthew Blackwell" <mbla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> BackTo1913 <feud...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7t0155$6ec$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Turbo-Capitalism (named by Edward Luttwak) has triumphed in
> earth.
> > Has any SF authors imagined this scenario before?
> >
> > Everybody in the world is chasing for money, and winners and
> losers are
> > being rapidly determined. The winners are Rentiers, those who
> had
> > properties to begin with and those who had the savvy to invest
> on
> > growth stocks.
> >
> call
> > household with an annual income of $100,000 middle class.
>
> household
> with that income as being middle class. After all, the real
> median income in
> 1997 for a US household was $38,885. That would make the
> households at
> $100,000 annual income *upper* class. (Or at least upper middle
> class.)
>
You have never lived in a big city, right?
An income of $100,000 for a household usually means two spouses earning
roughly $50,000 each pre-tax.
Take out about 35% (I am being conservative here) for federal, state
and social security taxes, and take out the mortgage and car payment.
Take out the utility bills, medical insurance, car insurance, and other
sundry bills.
Usually, if you take out everything, less than $30,000 remains, before
you have spent anything for grocery and clothings.
If they live in big city, they are lucky to have $10,000 remaining to
save for their retirement. If they live in a small city, then things
are different.
>
--
The Source of All Wisdom: (Clickable)
BackTo1913
> >paychecks away from the streets.
>
> Well, let's see: I make between $80,000 and $100,000 a year (base
> salary), I live in an area with a cost of living much higher than
> average (Silicon Valley), I have zero debt, and I've got so much
> disposable income that I'm running out of high-tech toys to buy
> Feudalist.
>
I assume you are unmarried. Most households earning $100,000 are those
where two spouses work.
A single person earning $100,000 and a household earning $100,000 is
vastly different.
Jordan S. Bassior
>An income of $100,000 for a household usually means two spouses earning
>roughly $50,000 each pre-tax.
No. It usually means one spouse (and usually the husband) earning the larger
income, and the wife working either part-time or at a fairly low-paying job.
And not working at all if she has children.
And most middle class families (as opposed to lone individuals) live in the
suburbs precisely because they want to keep their cost of living down. And they
are NOT just a paycheck or two away from disaster. That misleading statistic
includes people who: (1) deliberately understate their income, (2) are single,
and hence less responsible; and it does not include the fact that in real life
people who face bankruptcy end eviction may avoid it by selling assets or
getting help from family and friends. (Yes, Quonster, most people have
FRIENDS).
Jordan S. Bassior
>A single person earning $100,000 and a household earning $100,000 is
>vastly different.
Yes. The single person's position is much more precarious, because if anything
happens to him even temporarily he has lost his wage-earning power for that
period. And if he gets in trouble he has only one set of relatives, rather than
two sets, to assist him.
(I know you meant it the other way, but in fact families are much more
economically stable than individuals).
Louann Miller
wrote:
>and it does not include the fact that in real life
>people who face bankruptcy end eviction may avoid it by selling assets or
>getting help from family and friends. (Yes, Quonster, most people have
>FRIENDS).
Now you've hurt his feelings.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Feudalist said:
>
>>An income of $100,000 for a household usually means two spouses earning
>>roughly $50,000 each pre-tax.
>
>No. It usually means one spouse (and usually the husband) earning the larger
>income, and the wife working either part-time or at a fairly low-paying job.
>And not working at all if she has children.
Define "children."
Last I heard, 65% of married American women with kids also worked
outside the home.
If you limit it to pre-school children, then your statement would be
correct.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 7/24/99
Jason Larke
>>>>> <feud...@my-deja.com> said:
B> The losers are middle class and lower classes. Few people now
B> call household with an annual income of $100,000 middle
B> class. Even folks who gets $80,000/year income are one or two
B> paychecks away from the streets.
You're right, but only because a lot of people would say that
earning $100k makes you *upper* class.
When I was in school, the vogue was to constantly increase the
amount you needed to stay out of the lower class, but nobody ever
dared go so far as you have. If we're truly created a country
where members of the lower class drive beatiful automobiles, own
home theater systems, and put their children through college,
we're obviously doing something very right.
B> Within thirty years, feudalism is going to be reborn.
No it isn't.
When someone says something that logically does not follow, but
that you knew he was going to say anyway, is it really a
non-sequitur?
--
Jason Larke- jla...@uu.net- http://www.nnaf.net/~jlarke Send mail for PGP key
I don't speak for UUnet or MCI Worldcom. I speak for Odin. And he's *pissed*.
"The Rock can't say I quit, because the Rock only talks in the third person."
"People change, and smile: but the agony abides."-T.S. Eliot, The Dry Salvages
Jordan S. Bassior
>When I was in school, the vogue was to constantly increase the
>amount you needed to stay out of the lower class, but nobody ever
>dared go so far as you have. If we're truly created a country
>where members of the lower class drive beatiful automobiles, own
>home theater systems, and put their children through college,
>we're obviously doing something very right.
By the standards of a century ago, we are doing something very right ...
members of the lower class drive cars, have home entertainment, and can get
into college if they try hard enough. And a century in the future, we'll be
better off still, unless some catastrphe aborts the growth of our civilization.
>When someone says something that logically does not follow, but
>that you knew he was going to say anyway, is it really a
>non-sequitur?
It's a logical non sequiteur, but a predictable one if you know the particular
irrationality of the person involved. For example, if I was talking to Adolf
Hitler about the problems in our public schools, I would not be too surprised
if he started ranting about "Bolsheviks and Jews" and "degenerative
race-mixing", even though there's not much logical connection here.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Define "children."
>
>Last I heard, 65% of married American women with kids also worked
>outside the home.
>
>If you limit it to pre-school children, then your statement would be
>correct.
I was assuming young children, yes ... not necessarily pre-school, but pre
high-school at least. You're almost certainly correct, since "children" could
include teenagers and adults, and I know many women go back to work after their
children get old enough not to require constant parental supervision.
BackTo1913
> >vastly different.
>
> Yes. The single person's position is much more precarious, because if
anything
> happens to him even temporarily he has lost his wage-earning power
for that
> period. And if he gets in trouble he has only one set of relatives,
rather than
> two sets, to assist him.
Sometimes people have no sets of relatives.
>
> (I know you meant it the other way, but in fact families are much more
> economically stable than individuals).
>
The cold fact is, children are expensive. The overall costs of children
and divorce are very high, I have to say.
> Sincerely Yours,
> Jordan
>
> "Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between
an ape and
> a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R.
Inge)
>
--
J Greely
>I assume you are unmarried. Most households earning $100,000 are those
>where two spouses work.
Several of my co-workers support spouses on the same income; they just
don't get to buy as many neat toys as I do.
>A single person earning $100,000 and a household earning $100,000 is
>vastly different.
Yeah, they get a tax break.
I make more money than all four of my parents put together. This
doesn't seem to have stopped them from owning houses, cars, decent
suits, good food, and other middle-class trappings. Of course, they
don't live in Silicon Valley, so their nice houses cost them less than
a condemned crackerbox would cost me.
-j
Pete McCutchen
> Turbo-Capitalism (named by Edward Luttwak) has triumphed in earth.
>Has any SF authors imagined this scenario before?
Edward Luttwak is an example of unsuccessful attempt by a defense
industry to convert production to civillian use.
>
>Everybody in the world is chasing for money, and winners and losers are
>being rapidly determined. The winners are Rentiers, those who had
There's no indication that "winners and losers" are being determined
more rapidly than before. Further, as Jordan has no doubt pointed
out, and economy is not a zero-sum game.
>properties to begin with and those who had the savvy to invest on
>growth stocks.
>
>The losers are middle class and lower classes. Few people now call
>household with an annual income of $100,000 middle class. Even folks
Bullshit. Mutual funds, 401(k) plans, and E*Trade bring those
afforementioned growth stocks within range of the middle and lower
classes.
>who gets $80,000/year income are one or two paychecks away from the
>streets.
Only if they spend too much money.
>
>Within thirty years, feudalism is going to be reborn. The Rentiers (or
>the Sovran Individuals, borrowing Sprague de Camp's spelling --- for
>some reason he always spelled the word "sovran") would own practically
>everything, and all others work at their peonage. That is a factor of
>life, and it was true for the last 88 centuries, except the last two.
Has anybody ever told you that you were, well, a twit?
>
>Love, Emotion, Sympathy, Affection, Compassion, etc, etc would
>disappear altogether, and only things that can be measured
>qualitatively, like Gross Profit, Bottom Line, P/E ratio, Interest
>Rate, etc, etc would survive.
And where does _that_ come from?
>
>M/A industry is the biggest in the world, with more than a trillion
>dollars. The entire IT industry, combined, is less than half a
There's no such thing as the M/A industry, unless you're talking about
a few lawyers and investment bankers, whom, I assure you, are worth
substantially less than a trillion dollars.
Actually, businesses are not becoming any more concentrated than they
were fifty or a hundred years ago. Some companies, such as Time and
Warner Bros., and then Turner, merge, but other companies are divested
-- Time once owned Temple-Inland, and Time Warner once owned a big
chunk of Six Flags. In addition to divestitures, you also have new
entrants -- fifty years ago, Microsoft did not exist.
>trillion. Who benefits from M/As? The stockholders, the attorneys, and
>the anaylists. Who loses from it? the rank-and-file.
My father -- who worked as a rank-and-file worker at Time for close to
thirty years benefitted from the merger of Time and Warner, at least
in his capacity as a shareholder. There is often quite an overlap
between the rank-and-file and shareholders. More importantly, Joe
Sixpack benefits from the increased efficiencies and synergies created
by the merged company.
>
>The future would be very hard for the rank and file, just like the last
>88 centuries. The world is returning to its proper place, back to 1913.
You wish.
[remaining drivel snipped.]
Pete McCutchen
Hertzlinger) wrote:
>Is it my imagination or does feudalist get all of his ideas on
>capitalism from paranoid leftists --- except he thinks their
>pessimistic scenarios are a utopia?
Well, Eddie Luttwak isn't a paranoid leftist. He's actually somebody
kind of up Feudalist's alley: a paranoid, Prussian-style control freak
who once made a living analyzing the Evil Empire and defense stuff,
but who has more recently turned his talents to economics, where his
authoritarian notions have been rather roundly defeated over the last
forty years or so. Think Feudalist, but with an IQ in three digits.
(Well, two at least.)
Jason Larke
>>>>> <feud...@my-deja.com> said:
B> If they live in big city, they are lucky to have $10,000
B> remaining to save for their retirement. If they live in a
B> small city, then things are different.
Only $10,000 per year to save for retirement, huh? That must be
really rough. Let's see, figuring a modest ROI of 8%, after forty
years in the work force that would be, um, 3.8 billion before
taxes. Of course, that's not ajusted for infaction. It might only
be a few tens of millions in constant dollars.
Someday I, too, want to be lower class.
Robert Sneddon
Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> writes
>
>Yes. The single person's position is much more precarious, because if anything
>happens to him even temporarily he has lost his wage-earning power for that
>period. And if he gets in trouble he has only one set of relatives, rather than
>two sets, to assist him.
>
>economically stable than individuals).
Let's see - my brother is married, and has been continuously employed
since graduating with a doctorate in Chemistry over twenty years ago. He
earns in the $60,000 per annum region, as head of department at an
American University. He is up to his eyeballs in debt, because he has
five kids in the process of going through college.
Me? I'm single, no kids, employed intermittently as a contractor. In
the last year I've earned about $18,000, and I've got very healthy
balances in my bank accounts and investment portfolio.
You're right about the relatives, though - I've had to bail him out a
couple of times, as did my father when he was alive.
--
To reply by email, send to nojay (at) public (period) antipope (dot) org
Robert Sneddon
Coyu
>Edward Luttwak is an example of unsuccessful attempt by a defense
>industry to convert production to civillian use.
This is a great line - if I'm ever in a conversation where Edward
Luttwak is mentioned, may I use it?
Jonathan Hendry
Pete McCutchen wrote in message <37f4f81c...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>properties to begin with and those who had the savvy to invest on
>>growth stocks.
>>
>>The losers are middle class and lower classes. Few people now call
>>household with an annual income of $100,000 middle class. Even folks
>
>Bullshit. Mutual funds, 401(k) plans, and E*Trade bring those
>afforementioned growth stocks within range of the middle and lower
>classes.
Especially outfits like T. Rowe Price, which let you open a
mutual fund account with no minimum initial deposit, as long
as you set it up so that at least $50 is deposited every
month. This includes their science & technology fund. Not
much savvy required, or money for that matter.
Ability to invest is not an issue; if there's a financial
system holding back people with modest means, it's self-inflicted
through consumer debt, payday loans, and horrible TV/furniture
rental deals.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Feudalist said:
>
>>properties to begin with and those who had the savvy to invest on
>>growth stocks.
>>
>>The losers are middle class and lower classes. Few people now call
>>household with an annual income of $100,000 middle class. Even folks
>
>Bullshit. Mutual funds, 401(k) plans, and E*Trade bring those
>afforementioned growth stocks within range of the middle and lower
>classes.
Yes. If anything, stock and other financial paper ownership has widened
tremendously over the last decade or two. Increasingly, the line between the
upper and middle classes is blurring beyond all hope of reconstruction. Instead
of seperate "classes", there is now a smooth continuum of wealth.
>>who gets $80,000/year income are one or two paychecks away from the
>>streets.
>
>Only if they spend too much money.
Feudalist seems not to realize that someone making $80,000 a year who gets
fired does not continue spending his money at the same rate; he cuts back on
expenditures until he has found another high-paying job.
(To be fair, the alarmists who spread the "one or two paychecks from the
streets" stories also made this assumption. They did so because they wanted to
make people believe that they were in risk of becoming bums).
Jordan S. Bassior
>Sometimes people have no sets of relatives.
Most people are not orphans, until old age ... by which point most people have
descendants, and friends, and the descendants of friends. People form social
networks to gain strength from in times of crisis.
>The cold fact is, children are expensive.
Yes, but nevertheless families are more economically stable, because there are
two providers, and thus two sets of social networks connecting to them.
Will Shetterly
>Instead
>of seperate "classes", there is now a smooth continuum of wealth.
Hmm. A smooth continuum in which the median family in the US earns less than
$40,000 a year, 80% of the wealth is owned by 20% of the population, and, if I
remember correctly, 60% is owned by 5%. That may be smooth, but that's still a
mighty steep pyramid.
cheers,
Will
--
I never would believe that Providence had sent a few men into the world, ready
booted and spurred to ride, and millions ready saddled and bridled to be
ridden. -Walt Whitman (1819-1892)
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Jordan S. Bassior wrote:
>>Instead
>>of seperate "classes", there is now a smooth continuum of wealth.
>
>Hmm. A smooth continuum in which the median family in the US earns less than
>$40,000 a year, 80% of the wealth is owned by 20% of the population, and, if I
>remember correctly, 60% is owned by 5%. That may be smooth, but that's still a
>mighty steep pyramid.
Your figures contradict the ones in yesterday's Washington Post. It's
not 80% of the wealth, it's 80% of the investment securities. It's
49% of the total wealth.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 10/1/99
DRAGON WEATHER is now available -- ISBN 0-312-86978-9
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<tomwo...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote:
>There was an interesting Economist article recently suggesting that the
>developed world might be entering another period of zero inflation, like the one
>from about the Dawn of Time to 1850: that inflation was an anomaly resulting
>from countries industrialising.
They define "the Dawn of Time" as somewhere around 472 A.D.?
The Roman Empire had a problem with inflation off and on for about
five hundred years.
Samuel Paik
> Is it my imagination or does feudalist get all of his ideas on
> capitalism from paranoid leftists --- except he thinks their
> pessimistic scenarios are a utopia?
Hmm... If I recall correctly, Turbo-Capitalism is something that
Edward Luttwak coined, and I don't think he is usually considered
a leftist.
--
Samuel S. Paik | http://www.webnexus.com/users/paik/
3D and multimedia, architecture and implementation
Solyent Green is kitniyos!
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<tomwo...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote in message
>news:oRf2N8F5FWy50f...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 13:30:20 +0100, "tomwomack00"
>> <tomwo...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >There was an interesting Economist article recently suggesting that the
>> >developed world might be entering another period of zero inflation, like the
>> >one from about the Dawn of Time to 1850: that inflation was an anomaly
>> >resulting from countries industrialising.
>>
>> They define "the Dawn of Time" as somewhere around 472 A.D.?
>
>Nope; the graph they plotted started at about 1600 (which I suppose, thinking
>back, means they missed any effects from the discovery of the Americas or from
>the Black Death), and the editorial talked only about the future.
I don't know much of anything about the economy between 472 and 1600,
so there might've been inflationary periods in there, too.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Hmm. A smooth continuum in which the median family in the US earns less than
>$40,000 a year, 80% of the wealth is owned by 20% of the population, and, if
>I remember correctly, 60% is owned by 5%. That may be smooth, but that's still
>a mighty steep pyramid.
Do you mean "owned" or "controlled?" The very wealthy control a lot more wealth
than they own. (You "control" anything you own 51% of, and with multi-level
directorates it is possible to "control" a considerable mulitiple of what you
"own").
And yes, a smooth continuum in that there are no sharp class barriers. In
America there is no clear level of income or background distinguishing "middle"
from "upper" classes, which is why sociologists had to invent an "upper-middle"
class in the first place to analyze our society. This is true to a lesser
extent in Australia, Canada, and Britain, and to a still lesser extent in the
non-English speaking West. It was NOT and is not true for most other times and
places.
BackTo1913
lawr...@clark.net wrote:
> On 02 Oct 1999 18:04:24 GMT, wshet...@aol.compost (Will Shetterly)
> wrote:
>
> >Jordan S. Bassior wrote:
> >>Instead
> >>of seperate "classes", there is now a smooth continuum of wealth.
> >
less than
> >$40,000 a year, 80% of the wealth is owned by 20% of the population,
and, if I
> >remember correctly, 60% is owned by 5%. That may be smooth, but
that's still a
> >mighty steep pyramid.
>
> not 80% of the wealth, it's 80% of the investment securities. It's
> 49% of the total wealth.
>
A great improvement from 1913, when about 1% held 50% of total wealth.
> --
>
> The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update
10/1/99
> DRAGON WEATHER is now available -- ISBN 0-312-86978-9
>
--
From Feudalist's Dictionary:
Patriotism: Giving your life to prolong the terms
of your political leaders.
Sacrifice: A mentally unsound behavior.
tomwomack00
news:vat1zbe...@anthem.aa.ans.net...
> >>>>> On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:35:46 GMT, BackTo1913
> >>>>> <feud...@my-deja.com> said:
>
> B> If they live in big city, they are lucky to have $10,000
> B> remaining to save for their retirement. If they live in a
> B> small city, then things are different.
>
> Only $10,000 per year to save for retirement, huh? That must be
> really rough. Let's see, figuring a modest ROI of 8%, after forty
> years in the work force that would be, um, 3.8 billion before
> taxes.
Your spreadsheet is broken, and I'm not quite convinced that the RoI you're
using is as modest as you say.
$10K per year, for forty years, at 8%, gives 2.8 million assuming there's no
taxation occurring anywhere.
If you're in the UK high-tax bracket, paying 40% on the interest, RoI is
effectively 4.8% and it turns into 1.2 million; you've tripled your money,
pre-inflation, over 40 years.
There was an interesting Economist article recently suggesting that the
developed world might be entering another period of zero inflation, like the one
from about the Dawn of Time to 1850: that inflation was an anomaly resulting
from countries industrialising.
Tom
Pete McCutchen
Feel free.
BackTo1913
jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
> Do you mean "owned" or "controlled?" The very wealthy control a lot
more wealth
> than they own. (You "control" anything you own 51% of, and with multi-
level
> directorates it is possible to "control" a considerable mulitiple of
what you
> "own").
>
> And yes, a smooth continuum in that there are no sharp class
barriers. In
> America there is no clear level of income or background
distinguishing "middle"
> from "upper" classes, which is why sociologists had to invent
an "upper-middle"
> class in the first place to analyze our society. This is true to a
lesser
> extent in Australia, Canada, and Britain, and to a still lesser
extent in the
> non-English speaking West. It was NOT and is not true for most other
times and
> places.
And, it won't be true in English-speaking world within 30 years. All
progress would be wiped out within that time frame.
The share of the top quintile (1/5th) had grown from 43% to 49%,
according to the Wall Street Journal. IT would grow to about 98% within
30 years, just as it was the case in 1913 Britain.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
> Jordan
>
> "Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between
an ape and
> a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R.
Inge)
>
--
Pete McCutchen
<tomwo...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Your spreadsheet is broken, and I'm not quite convinced that the RoI you're
>using is as modest as you say.
>
>$10K per year, for forty years, at 8%, gives 2.8 million assuming there's no
>taxation occurring anywhere.
>
>If you're in the UK high-tax bracket, paying 40% on the interest, RoI is
>effectively 4.8% and it turns into 1.2 million; you've tripled your money,
>pre-inflation, over 40 years.
Do you have the equivalent to a 401(k)? In the US, many employees
have plans under which they can invest up to about $10,000 a year in a
tax-deferred account. Sometimes, their employer will match, or partly
match, the contribution. And self-employed individuals can open a
SEP-IRA or Keough account, which allows tax-deferred investment of up
to 25% of their income, up to a maximum of $30,000 per year.
And this doesn't include the $2,000 per year that nearly everybody can
contribute to a tax-deferred or even tax-free IRA account.
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>Jordan S. Bassior wrote:
>>Instead
>>of seperate "classes", there is now a smooth continuum of wealth.
>
>Hmm. A smooth continuum in which the median family in the US earns less than
>$40,000 a year, 80% of the wealth is owned by 20% of the population, and, if I
>remember correctly, 60% is owned by 5%. That may be smooth, but that's still a
>mighty steep pyramid.
Such estimates routinely ignore things like pension funds, 401(k)
accounts, and IRAs, which is where the average American keeps his
wealth. (If you exclude those items, my wife and I have a negative
net worth, what with some still-unpaid school loans and a
recently-acquired mortgage. Count her 401(k) and my Keough, and both
our IRAs, though, and we're damn close to being millionares.)
tomwomack00
> >developed world might be entering another period of zero inflation, like the
> >one from about the Dawn of Time to 1850: that inflation was an anomaly
> >resulting from countries industrialising.
>
Nope; the graph they plotted started at about 1600 (which I suppose, thinking
back, means they missed any effects from the discovery of the Americas or from
the Black Death), and the editorial talked only about the future.
I'll have to read Gibbon at some point; I have very little clue about the
economic behaviour of the Roman Empire, and only a few disconnected sections
about the political behaviour (Julius Caesar through Nero, and then Belisarius
and Justinian, and Constantine 'in hoc signo vinces', and Hadrian being
expansionist; the first one from reading Britannicus in French classes, the
second from a Graves fictionalised version of the life of Belisarius, and
Hadrian mostly from Rosemary Sutcliffe's tales about the legions guarding the
Wall).
Tom
Robert Sneddon
Shetterly <wshet...@aol.compost> writes
> 80% of the wealth is owned by 20% of the population, and, if I
>remember correctly, 60% is owned by 5%.
You forgot the statistic that 100% of the wealth is owned by 100% of
the population...
Jordan S. Bassior
>And, it won't be true in English-speaking world within 30 years. All
>progress would be wiped out within that time frame.
Due to the Alien Space Bats and their magic progress-destroying rays, no doubt
...
>The share of the top quintile (1/5th) had grown from 43% to 49%,
>according to the Wall Street Journal. IT would grow to about 98% within
>30 years, just as it was the case in 1913 Britain.
You are committing the fallacy of extrapolating without awareness of limiting
conditions.
Jay Shorten
"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
> >The share of the top quintile (1/5th) had grown from 43% to 49%,
> >according to the Wall Street Journal. IT would grow to about 98% within
> >30 years, just as it was the case in 1913 Britain.
>
> You are committing the fallacy of extrapolating without awareness of limiting
> conditions.
Why would there necessarily be limiting conditions towards the rich and powerful
becoming richer and powerful? What would limit them? Why would they permit
themselves to be limited?
Jay
Jay Shorten
BackTo1913 wrote:
> And, it won't be true in English-speaking world within 30 years. All
> progress would be wiped out within that time frame.
>
> The share of the top quintile (1/5th) had grown from 43% to 49%,
> according to the Wall Street Journal. IT would grow to about 98% within
> 30 years, just as it was the case in 1913 Britain.
Feudalist, as someone who as read _The Sovereign Individual_ and, being a
severe pessimist, finds your scenarios all too plausible and likely, why are
you telling people this? Why aren't you using your foreknowledge to become a
Sovereign Individual or, if you lack the skills to do this, finding a
Sovereign Individual to become a servant to? Or, if you can't do either, and
I'm sure it will be just as difficult to find an SI as to become one, why
aren't you preparing a means to kill yourself when (or before) the Age of
the Common Person is over?
What is the point of warning everyone about the doom to come? They are not
likely to be able to do anything about it anyway. Why are you wasting your
time? Even if everyone says on that horrible day, "Oh Feudalist, you were
right, we should have believed you," that won't help *you* avert starvation
for one minute longer. You'll be just like the rest of us scrabbling in the
ruins for a mouldy piece of bread!
(And Jordan, please don't killfile Feudalist. Keep debating with him!
Although I find Feudalist's scenarios believable, I certainly don't want
them to be true. I would love to be convincingly demonstrated that the
future can be optimistic.)
Jay Shorten
Jonathan Hendry
Jordan S. Bassior wrote in message
<19991003204837...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
>Jay Shorten said:
>
>>Why would there necessarily be limiting conditions towards the rich and
>>powerful becoming richer and powerful?
>
>even their power must be obtained by the consent of the governed, in a liberal
>capitalist democracy.
Not to mention the fact that the rich and powerful eventually age
and die. Upon death, their wealth is divided among the inheritors,
and power may or may not be passed on.
<snip>
>
>The only real danger is that we will move to a system of greater government
>control over the economy. In this case the rich and powerful could use the
>government as a tool to forcibly take people's property and reassign it,
>directly or indirectly, to them.
Which happens, mostly in the case of real estate developers with
connections. It's not always successful.
That said, the good thing about people becoming rich and powerful is
that they need to do things with their money. So they invest in
new startup firms largely staffed by those who are not rich. If the startup
is successful, more rich people are created, and they continue the cycle.
Jay Shorten
Jay Shorten wrote:
> BackTo1913 wrote:
>
> > And, it won't be true in English-speaking world within 30 years. All
> > progress would be wiped out within that time frame.
> >
> > The share of the top quintile (1/5th) had grown from 43% to 49%,
> > according to the Wall Street Journal. IT would grow to about 98% within
> > 30 years, just as it was the case in 1913 Britain.
>
> Feudalist, as someone who as read _The Sovereign Individual_ and, being a
> severe pessimist, finds your scenarios all too plausible and likely, why are
> you telling people this?
Oh, yes, and wouldn't you be better to post on alt.politics.economics?
Jay
Jordan S. Bassior
>Why would there necessarily be limiting conditions towards the rich and
>powerful becoming richer and powerful?
Because their wealth is obtained mostly through voluntary transactions, and
even their power must be obtained by the consent of the governed, in a liberal
capitalist democracy.
>What would limit them?
They are rich because their selves and their assets produce more than other
people, not because they are somehow better at grabbing other people's "stuff".
Since other people also produce, it is improbable that somehow a tiny minority
would wind up producing all the goods consumed by a whole society.
If they did, of course, they would have to lower their prices (because their
market couldn't bear as much) which would lower the cost of living, which would
in turn act as an income transfer to the poor. So it would be a self correcting
problem.
The only real danger is that we will move to a system of greater government
control over the economy. In this case the rich and powerful could use the
government as a tool to forcibly take people's property and reassign it,
directly or indirectly, to them.
>Why would they permit
>themselves to be limited?
Because "rich" is not synonymous with "omnipotent".
Matt Blackwell
>In article <7t0oo6$r...@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>,
> "Matthew Blackwell" <mbla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> BackTo1913 <feud...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:7t0155$6ec$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > Turbo-Capitalism (named by Edward Luttwak) has triumphed in
>> earth.
>> > Has any SF authors imagined this scenario before?
>> >
>> > Everybody in the world is chasing for money, and winners and
>> losers are
>> > being rapidly determined. The winners are Rentiers, those who
>> had
>> > properties to begin with and those who had the savvy to invest
>> on
>> > growth stocks.
>> >
>> > The losers are middle class and lower classes. Few people now
>> call
>> > household with an annual income of $100,000 middle class.
>>
>> For once, you're absolutely correct. Few people would call a
>> household
>> with that income as being middle class. After all, the real
>> median income in
>> 1997 for a US household was $38,885. That would make the
>> households at
>> $100,000 annual income *upper* class. (Or at least upper middle
>> class.)
>>
>
>You have never lived in a big city, right?
>
It depends on the definition of a big city. If you mean, New York, LA
or Chicago, no. If you mean a city larger than 1 million people, then
yes. But keep in mind, most people in big cities don't really live in
big cities either. The New York City Metro area has 20 million people,
but only 8 million live in the city itself. The remainder live in
places such as Newark, or New Haven or in Eastern Pennsylvania where
the prices aren't quite as expensive to live.
>An income of $100,000 for a household usually means two spouses earning
>roughly $50,000 each pre-tax.
>
Uh huh. And, according to the census, that's in the upper 20% of
households money wise. Here are some 1998 numbers:
The Bottom 20%: (i.e. the poor) Tops at $16,116
The Median: $38,885
The top 20% (i.e.: the Upper class) $75,000
The top 5%: $132,199
(And the median income in NYC? $41,908.)
All numbers are courtesy of the US Census Bureau, document P60-206,
the 1998 Income Report.
Remember, all of these numbers are for household, not indiviuals.So,
your numbers are drastically off. And if they're far off enough so
that 90% of the US population are considered to you to be "poor", then
why should I pay attention to the rest of your argument? After all, if
the premise is garbage, then the result is likely to be garbage too.
And I'm not quite sure how retirement income relates to your thesis of
a rising corporate state, so I'll just ignore it as an attempt to
divert the issue.
Jordan S. Bassior
Imagine that there are three companies, A, B, and C.
Imagine that company C is worth $100 million dollars.
Now, let's say that 50% plus 1 share of company C is owned by B, and that C is
B's major holdings. 50% plus 1 share of company B is owned by A, and B is A's
major holdings. And you, you lucky fellow, own 50% plus 1 share of company A,
and this is your major holding.
It should be obvious that if company C is worth $100 million, then (assuming no
other major assets or liabilities), company B is worth roughly $50 million,
company A $25 million, and YOU are worth roughly $12.5 million.
Yet, you have total control of company C, which is worth $100 million. You own
$12.5 million, but control $100 million. See?
Jens Kilian
> I make more money than all four of my parents put together.
I know this is r.a.s.w, but still ... *four* parents?
--
mailto:j...@acm.org phone:+49-7031-14-7698 (HP TELNET 778-7698)
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ fax:+49-7031-14-7351
PGP: 06 04 1C 35 7B DC 1F 26 As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
0x555DA8B5 BB A2 F0 66 77 75 E1 08 so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
Louann Miller
<jsho...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Feudalist, as someone who as read _The Sovereign Individual_ and, being a
>severe pessimist, finds your scenarios all too plausible and likely, why are
>you telling people this? Why aren't you using your foreknowledge to become a
>Sovereign Individual or, if you lack the skills to do this, finding a
>Sovereign Individual to become a servant to? Or, if you can't do either, and
>I'm sure it will be just as difficult to find an SI as to become one, why
>aren't you preparing a means to kill yourself when (or before) the Age of
>the Common Person is over?
He shared some biographical information over on soc.history.what-if
once indicating that for most of his adult life (and I gather he's
also extremely young) he's been working directly for bluebloods in
pretty much a servant capacity. So, (a) you can allow for this skew in
his perspective and (b) he does at least practice what he preaches.
>What is the point of warning everyone about the doom to come? They are not
>likely to be able to do anything about it anyway. Why are you wasting your
>time?
The other thing to understand about Feudalist/Quonster is that this
isn't dystopia to him -- it's his stroke fantasy. Speaking of sources
of perspective skew.
Jordan S. Bassior
>He shared some biographical information over on soc.history.what-if
>once indicating that for most of his adult life (and I gather he's
>also extremely young) he's been working directly for bluebloods in
>pretty much a servant capacity.
I got the impression that:
(1) They didn't treat him very well.
(2) This somehow involved a romantic disappointment, and
(3) Therefore he wants everyone else to have to suffer as he did.
Jordan S. Bassior
>I know this is r.a.s.w, but still ... *four* parents?
I had four parents. My biological parents, Rodney and Ilsa, and my adoptive
parents, George and Norma. Given multiple divorces, etc., more would be
possible.
Martin Ripa
Jay Shorten <jsho...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>(And Jordan, please don't killfile Feudalist. Keep debating with him!
>Although I find Feudalist's scenarios believable,
Quonster has a first convert. Another proof that everything
is possible :-((
> I certainly don't want
>them to be true. I would love to be convincingly demonstrated that the
>future can be optimistic.)
Martin
--
"I wouldn't want to be a member of any
club that would allow *me* to join."
Groucho Marx
Lavos999
>An income of $100,000 for a household usually means two spouses earning
>roughly $50,000 each pre-tax.
Or it could mean one spouse earning $75,000 and the other earning $25,000, or
any combination of that kind. Or one spouse earning the full $100,000 and the
other staying home.
>Take out about 35% (I am being conservative here) for federal, state
>and social security taxes, and take out the mortgage and car payment.
>Take out the utility bills, medical insurance, car insurance, and other
>sundry bills.
Well, yes, but we're already paying all that, so what would change in your
scenario? And since you called your scenario "turbo-capitalism" I can assume
that the taxes would go way down, if not be eliminated completely, which makes
a big difference.
>Usually, if you take out everything, less than $30,000 remains, before
>you have spent anything for grocery and clothings.
Which most people can live on just fine. There are people who make less than
$30,000 *total* a year and they're hardly mired in poverty.
>If they live in big city, they are lucky to have $10,000 remaining to
>save for their retirement.
Which is more than enough if you invest it correctly.
----------
"As a basic step of self-esteem, learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any
man's *demand* for your help. To demand it is to claim that your life is *his*
property."
- John Galt
Lavos999
>Is it my imagination or does feudalist get all of his ideas on
>capitalism from paranoid leftists --- except he thinks their
>pessimistic scenarios are a utopia?
That's a very apt description. And it's quite possible that he did actually get
these silly ideas from anti-capitalist sources.
Lmundstock
>It's
>> not 80% of the wealth, it's 80% of the investment securities. It's
>> 49% of the total wealth.
>>
>
>A great improvement from 1913, when about 1% held 50% of total wealth.
>
Either I'm missing something or you just made some sense there. Good for you,
but I still don't like you.
"I don't believe in coincidences. They're like leprechauns and unicorns, they
died out a long time ago."